Viktor Korchnoi, who turned 80 yesterday, is one of the great figures of twentieth-century chess, but also one of the most controversial. Evgeny Vasiukov, who’s known him for 60 years, felt compelled to voice what he considers the truth about Korchnoi, both as a man and a chess player.

Viktor Korchnoi’s eightieth birthday was celebrated around the chess world yesterday, with glowing tributes appearing, for example, at ChessVibes and ChessBase. Perhaps the one dissenting voice was that of 78-year-old GM Evgeny Vasiukov, who was interviewed by Evgeny Surov of Chess-News. While Korchnoi needs little introduction, it’s worth saying a little about Vasiukov.

Evgeny Vasiukov (b. 5 March, 1933) is a good illustration of the power of Soviet Chess. Despite winning the Moscow Championship six times, reaching 11th in the world in 1962 (according to Chessmetrics), and beating a whole series of World Champions, he never quite emerged onto the world stage in his own right. His compatriots were simply too strong.

Nevertheless, he’s left his mark on chess. A Tal-like player, his best-known game was perhaps his loss to Tal in 1964. Tal made a trademark sacrifice, and later famously revealed that his thought processes had involved wondering how to drag a hippopotamus out of a marsh, before deciding to let it drown. As a second, Vasiukov assisted Mark Taimanov in the match he lost 6:0 to Bobby Fischer, while he was also one of Anatoly Karpov’s trainers at three World Championship matches, and worked with five teams at the Olympiad. Like Korchnoi, he continues to play (with a very respectable 2480 rating), as well as organise senior events.

Near the beginning of the Russian interview at Chess-News, which you can also listen to, Evgeny Vasiukov embarks on a long monologue. I considered skipping it (he gets to Korchnoi later), but in fact it provides a fascinating perspective on another episode of chess history which Vasiukov was directly involved in – Bobby Fischer’s visit to Moscow in 1958 as a 15-year-old.

You were also Korchnoi’s coach?

Yes, at the Interzonal Tournament in Sousse. That’s remembered by all chess fans for the fact that Bobby Fischer withdrew while leading the tournament. There’ve been all kinds of judgements and interesting arguments about that. The older generation of chess players was even familiar with the bulletin that was published at the tournament, and I was the one writing each day about what went on there – as Korchnoi’s second I was in the thick of events. It was very interesting, unusual, and it left a certain trace in chess history. And Fischer himself, of course, was an amazing and out-of-the-ordinary figure.

I had the opportunity to spend time with him on more than one occasion. The first time was in Moscow, when he arrived and was supposed to play two training matches (not many people know about that). The American Chess Federation approached our Soviet one, and two people were supposed to play training matches against Fischer. Those were Boris Spassky, our youngest grandmaster, the World Junior Champion, and the World Student Team Champion (at the time those events were rated very highly after the Olympiads). The second person who was supposed to play Fischer was me. I was the Moscow Champion at the time, and a two-time World Student Champion.

Fischer plays Petrosian in the Moscow Central Chess Club in 1958 - Vasiukov may be one of the seated figures

But on his arrival in Moscow, Fischer said that he only wanted to play Botvinnik. That made a lot of people smile, as Mikhail Moiseyevich stood on such a pedestal, and the idea that he would simply play a training game against someone (and an American at that) was inconceivable. For the two weeks that Fischer was in Moscow he played blitz from morning to night, and gave everyone an incredible battering. And then three people were invited, based on the results of the most recent “Vechernaya Moskva” blitz tournament, which was the unofficial Soviet Union blitz championship. They invited the three winners: Petrosian, who came third, Bronstein, who lost a match to me for first place, and myself. But David Ionovich [Bronstein], who had already played a World Championship match, said: sorry, but why should I play a kid? Tigran Vartanovich [Petrosian] and I arrived. We played in the grandmasters’ room, and Petrosian won by a small margin, while I literally crushed Fischer. From that point on whenever we met he always treated me with great respect. There were even situations… for example, the 85th birthday of Andor Lilienthal was being celebrated in Budapest, there were a lot of guests, including Taimanov and the editor of the magazine “64”, Roshal, – but Fischer didn’t want to meet with anyone, while he met me twice. For one of those encounters he invited me to dinner, and we dined together.

Vasiukov at the USSR Championship in 1974

As for Sousse, I was Korchnoi’s second there. To a certain degree that was unexpected, as during that period his permanent trainer was Semen Abramovich Furman. He was unwell at the time, however, and Korchnoi approached me to help him at the tournament. We’d had a normal relationship up to that point as well, but somehow it was strengthened there. Korchnoi was satisfied with the way things went. It struck me that he wasn’t very well prepared, but we did a lot of work, and often managed to come up with the right thing to play. As a result Korchnoi got into the Candidates Tournament. I was told that in the chess federation (and back then every performance would be carefully analysed at that level) he had a very high opinion of how I’d helped him.

There was another curious thing. To get to that tournament it was more convenient to drive to the airport from my house. It’s interesting that from that point onwards Korchnoi would, over the course of many years while he was living in the Soviet Union, call me before going to a tournament and ask, “would you mind if I spend the night at your house?” I’d say, “come round”.

So he was superstitious?

Yes, that showed at times.

Or, perhaps, he not only was, but still is superstitious?

I think so, yes. But that was particularly illustrative, you might say, because it continued over the course of many years. And I’ll say, getting ahead of myself, that when Korchnoi emigrated and then in his book, “Anti-Chess”, unfortunately portrayed many of his colleagues in far from the best light, the only one who he cast no stones against, was me. And I was asked at the time why that was. I think it was simply that the relationship we’d had until that point provided no impetus at all for a release of negative emotions.

And if they asked you that must have meant, no doubt, that there could have been reasons of some sort?

They were amazed, because almost all (in any case, most) of his colleagues… I’d say that Viktor Lvovich never appreciated his colleagues. For example, Tal, a brilliant, fascinating chess player. He called him something like “a routine attacker”. Words like that. That’s somehow just diminishing the perception of Tal.

The kid, and Tal was 23 when he became Champion – simply burst into the world ruled by Botvinnik, Keres, Bronstein… And Korchnoi’s question: “But why? Why him?” he asked before my very eyes (back then I was still just a boy), of my trainer, the famous Zak. “Why? Does he really understand chess better than I do?” That question, I think, was on the lips of all the leading chess players of the time […]

Interesting. And did you know any chess players who Korchnoi had a good opinion about?

[Long pause] It’s a little hard to reply off the top of my head… Among contemporaries, among those who were alongside him…

Yes, among those he played.

I can’t really remember anything in particular. From his very earliest days he had a very cautious and negative perception of many people. And it’s no accident than when he was still a young man people began to whisper: they called him “bad-tempered Viktor”. That was the name he had behind his back, among colleagues. “Bad-tempered Viktor”. I think something like that has to be earned… You don’t simply acquire such things. His instability is well-known…

I know that, all things considered, you’ve got a difficult relationship with him.

The thing is that he was far from the only one in those years who was invited to stay, to play for some other country. Many people nowadays, not knowing the ins and outs of the context, say, “ah, what a hero Korchnoi is”. I don’t agree with that position. Few know that doing what he did he was, above all, trampling on his family. Tal told me that when Korchnoi’s wife and son were allowed to leave [the Soviet Union] (and his son had already been to prison before that), he didn’t even meet them. Instead they were met by his lawyer with a divorce letter. And Tal once asked Korchnoi’s son, “Igor, what’s your relationship with your father like?” To which the son replied, “I don’t want to hear or speak about Mr. Korchnoi”. So there’s that side of life… Everyone talks only about the chess side, but life – it doesn’t end with chess. After all, we live among people, both those close to us, and distant…

Of course, as a chess player he achieved a great deal. It was even difficult to imagine that he’d achieve all that. But a whole series of things went along with it. Why did he have such a negative impression of Karpov? Because when Fischer, at that moment the strongest player in the world, stopped playing, a certain vacuum was formed at the top. Spassky, Tal and Petrosian, who in terms of talent – I emphasise, in terms of chess talent – were far above Korchnoi, had already passed the peak of their achievements, and weren’t competing the way they’d competed before then. And Korchnoi, thanks to his single-mindedness, seemed to be if not the only, then one of the closest contenders out of all the rest for the chess crown. And that’s when Karpov unexpectedly appeared on the scene. Completely unexpected. If it wasn’t for that Korchnoi would have had chances.

Karpov-Korchnoi Candidates Final, 1974 | photo: chessville.com

Unfortunately for Korchnoi, Karpov appears – at the least convenient moment, when Korchnoi’s at the height of his game.

Yes. I was close to Tal, and Petrosian, and Spassky, and know Karpov very well, as I was his trainer for three matches. And I know Korchnoi very well. Of course, in terms of pure chess talent he’s inferior. Simply of a different magnitude. But in terms of sporting animosity he was, perhaps, superior to them all.

No, I’d say hard work, as well, of course. Without that it’s impossible. The combination of those qualities.

But you can see that in terms of playing longevity he has, of course, superseded everyone. It’s simply phenomenal for an 80-year-old to be still be playing and demonstrating a decent level.

That’s connected to other things. The point is that for his whole life he’s been egocentric. He strove for the goal he wanted to achieve at any cost. A whole series of people – again Petrosian, Karpov – they spent a lot of time on public activities. That demands a great deal of effort. I can tell you as I’ve also had some experience of it. I spent eight years as the president of a veterans’ commission, and because of that I haven’t taken part in a lot of tournaments. Organisation, if you do it in good faith, demands a lot of time and effort. Korchnoi always only took care of himself, his own problems. Perhaps, in relation to himself, he was right. But I think, it’s my credo, that a chess player at grandmaster level should nevertheless be a public figure as well. He should give lectures or simuls somewhere, or run something, coach a team… He should do something in a wider context. “For yourself”, on the other hand, is an ideal platform, very convenient. And, as they say, good luck to him, if he’s got such a possibility and goal.

Vasiukov hands a medal to the world's oldest GM, Yury Averbakh (left), at a handicap blitz event he organised in Moscow last year | photo: www.russiachess.org

What sort of relationship do you have with him now?

Almost none. I was surprised by what he did at the World Senior Championship, when he behaved incorrectly. But I don’t want to go into any detail about it – after all, it’s his birthday now, and I don’t want to… It’s no secret for anyone that the relations between Korchnoi and his colleagues away from the chessboard were far from unequivocal. I don’t understand those people who, not knowing many things connected to him, go, “hurrah, hurrah, how wonderful he is!”

Well, hurrah because they don’t know. It would be worse if they knew but pretended.

There’s a Latin saying: speak well of the dead, or not at all. But they forget there’s another saying: speak the truth about the dead. And I think it’s even more the case that you should also speak the truth about the living, because later biographies will appear where the person’s almost unrecognisable. Korchnoi is a good chess player, who achieved much more than his chess abilities promised. They were great, but not on the level of the players I talked about. Nevertheless, he played two World Championship matches.

So that’s what you single out as the main thing: his achievements don’t correspond, in your opinion, to the chess abilities he started out with?

Of course. Undoubtedly. Yes, and one more thing: he was teachable. He was teachable.

The ability to learn – that’s a very important thing.

Yes, yes. A documentary’s just been shown, where he says that Kasparov stopped playing at the age of 42, while he was still learning at 46. That really is true. He’s always got something to learn. What contrasts there were between the chess players of my generation! We’d talk about who Korchnoi was, and who Karpov was. With Karpov you won’t find a single piece on the board that’s badly placed, while with Korchnoi you might well find them. That’s because there are many things he doesn’t sense, he has no internal harmony. But as a fighter, as a sportsman, he overcomes that and achieves success.

Korchnoi at the last ever Amber Tournament | photo: Fred Lucas

The interview ends with Surov thanking Vasiukov for his honesty. Of course, it almost goes without saying that many of the judgments above can be challenged, and no doubt will be (Boris Kletinich has begun, for instance, at Chess-News). For now, however, I’d simply like to wish Viktor Korchnoi a happy birthday!

41 responses to “Anti-hero? Evgeny Vasiukov on Viktor Korchnoi”

A great read! Thank you, mishanp!
I have been following (let me use Polish spelling) Korcznoj for 50 years and he is such a fascinating personality. A touch of genius mixed with a lot of human frailty. I guess I would not like him at all in person, but I greatly admire him.

FP, the interview was conducted, and published, at Chess-News on Korchnoi’s birthday, which Vasiukov mentions in the interview. I did think about whether to delay it (and in any case I published it a day later), but decided it was interesting enough, and that at least raising the topic of Korchnoi’s tricky character perhaps provides a useful balance to the other material available. For what it’s worth, I’d spent most of the day before Korchnoi’s birthday translating a positive interview with Korchnoi himself – only to then discover that it was concocted from earlier interviews and essentially never happened… (take a bow, Vladimir Vashevnik!)

Simple Pole – yep, for me Korchnoi and Kasparov fall into the same category. Not people you’d really choose to be stuck in a room with, but exceptional chess players you can admire for their fighting characters. Kasparov also wasn’t known for his sense of harmony etc. and always had to calculate to know what was going on – but the ability to do that fast and well is just as valid a part of chess talent – especially as the “truth” in chess is often ugly, and a sense of harmony won’t always get you there!

Thanks for the good read, mishanp! I love your site. I think it´s nice and refreshing to read something other than “great Korchnoi turned 80”, and anyway this is only another opinion, which you´re not presenting as the only universal truth about Korchnoi.

As for Korchnoi and Kasparov´s personalities, I don´t know about the former, but the latter can be a nice chat if you catch him on a good day (otherwise, from what I know, beware! :P)

1)In 1958 Fischer was the U.S.Champion.He had every right to be shown respect.The Soviets were condescending and treated him as a kid. Contrary to Vasuikov’s statement he was ready to play serious games with any of the leading grandmasters, if Botvinnik was not available. The Soviets did not oblige.
2)In blitz games at Moscow Central club only Petrosian held his own against Fischer, not Vasuikov or any one else (Russians versus Fischer by Plisetsky and Voronkov)
3)Vasuikov exaggerates his own importance in Korchnoi’s preparation for the 1967 Interzonal. Here is what Korchnoi had to say:
I engaged the assistance of Vasuikov, a diligent and hard working man. But his chess repertoire was quite different to mine, and each of us had to do some relearning.
4)Contrary To Vasuikov’s perception, Korchnoi did get along well with contemporaries like Spassky and Tal, not to mention older colleagues like Bronstein and Keres. In his autobiography, he expresses his admiration for the style of most of his these players. He did call Tal a routine attacker. The Latvian seldom played well against Korchnoi till 1980s.
5) Korchnoi fought for the return of his first wife and son from the Soviet Union. He continues to maintain good relations with his son Igor who contributed a whole chapter on his father’s autobiography, Chess is My Life. Korchnoi divorced his wife only when she was safe and secure. Vasuikov quotes Tal, mentioning that she was served a divorce notice right on her arrival. Misha seldom indulged in this kind of gossip about others. He is dead. So is Korchnoi’s first wife. The dead cannot speak. Can they?

Vasuikov actively participated in the Soviet propaganda against Korchnoi. His speaking for the plight of Viktor’s deceased wife and son after all these years is hypocritical.
He benefited from the official patronage throughout the Soviet era. He accuses Korchnoi of not doing public work. Viktor has not retired from play and he continues to represent the Swiss team in Olympiads. This is public work.

While I agree you can’t take everything Vasiukov says as gospel – and I’m with you on public work (the weakest of his arguments) – I think you’re going too far the other way.

Why should we take a recent book by two journalists as a better source than Vasiukov for what happened in his own games with Fischer in 1958? (and we know for certain Vasiukov said exactly what’s reported, as you can listen to it at Chess-News.ru). Likewise, it’s perfectly possible Vasiukov exagerrated the help he gave to Korchnoi in 1967, but then how do we know Korchnoi wasn’t underplaying Vasiukov’s role?

When it comes to Korchnoi’s son it seems there were different periods in their relationship. For instance, Friedel’s recent photo-report at ChessBase shows Igor together with his father. However, as was pointed out by “stirlitz” at Crestbook, Korchnoi himself in his “Chess Without Mercy” says he was estranged from Igor for 15 years (up to 1999). So it’s perfectly possible Vasiukov might have heard that comment from Tal.

1)The point that young Fischer beat Vasiukov and Nikitin in game after game and Petrosian was summoned to deal with the wunderkind comes from an authoritative source, Yuri Averbakh in a first person narration in Russians versus Fischer. I need not mention others like Frank Brady and Harry Golombek who confirm the same. Vasiukov is making this claim for the first time after all these years. If he was really beating Fischer as he belatedly claims there would have been no need to call Petrosian at all.

2)In his autobiography, Chess is My Life Korchnoi writes that he had kept himself free on the scheduled day of arrival of his family. Then the date was suddenly put back by a week and it so happened that he was giving a simultaneous display. It was in these circumstances that he sent his lawyer to receive them at the airport. The arrival of the family was in 1982 and the divorce proceedings started long after in 1988. During the interim period Korchnoi did look after his family.
In the autobiography he offers a sensitive account of his estrangement from his wife, never blaming her for anything. Even after the divorce her illness continued to be cause for concern and he remained in touch trying to help.

It does sound as though there might be evidence for Vasiukov not doing as well in blitz as he claims, but one of your comments is innacurate: “If he was really beating Fischer as he belatedly claims there would have been no need to call Petrosian at all.”

In the interview Vasiukov explains that they called Petrosian, Bronstein and himself because other players (not Vasiukov) were doing badly against Fischer. It’s not far-fetched that Vasiukov might have won, of course – Fischer was only 15 and Vasiukov had just won an extremely strong blitz tournament.

“SEEKING DIVORCE. Viktor Korchnoi, 52, tempestuous Soviet chess grand master who defected in 1976; and Beta Korchnoi, 50, who emigrated to Switzerland last year with their son Igor, 23, after the young man spent 30 months in a Siberian labor camp for refusing military service; after 25 years of marriage; in Wohlen, Switzerland. Korchnoi, who twice lost world championship matches to erstwhile Countryman Anatoly Karpov, pleaded with Leonid Brezhnev to allow his family to leave in 1978, though he was linked romantically with his Austrian-born manager, Petra Leeuwerik.”

“At first Fischer played 5-minute games with Petrosian. Petrosian beat the guest in the first two games, then there was an equal struggle. At the same time I managed to whitewash Efim Geller. Perhaps that was why I was in too generous a mood. Bobby won the first two games. But I was in good form, – so the young Fischer began to lose game after game. I suggested we stopped, but he silently set up the pieces again and again. He lost by a large margin, but he showed his character…”

Of course I’ve no way of knowing how much faith to put in any of that.

1)The account of Vasiukov is diametrically opposite to that of Averbakh. I would rely on the latter as both western and Soviet accounts support the same.
2)The Time magazine report manages to get the wife’s name wrong. It’s Bela, not Beta. But this could be the printer’s devil. In his autobiography Korchnoi writes,
After temporarily staying in Zuruch, the family moved to Lausanne…in this university my son intended to continue his education.Indeed, in 1983 he entered the university physics faculty and successfully completed the course in 1988.
(Paragraph)
My wife and I began divorce proceedings… and these continued for three years. “
I linked the year 1988 to the divorce proceedings. But this does not appear to be correct.
1988 is the year of Igor finishing the course. Earlier in the chapter My family in the West Korchnoi says that the marriage had fallen apart through six years of separation among other reasons. He defected in 1976. So 1983 could be the correct year for marking the beginning of divorce proceedings.
The education of his son, providing for his foster mother and Bela’s own need to start an independent career were all important factors before both went on this painful course. Last but not least was his emotional involvement with Petra, his comrade-in-arms. He married her after the divorce had come into effect.
That Time magazine bit is just invaluable. Thanks again.

Interesting read. Unlike the prof. I find Vasiukov’s story fairly plausible, both on him meeting & beating Fischer and his stories on Korchnoi.
I don’t see why statements by Averbakh or books by Korchnoi himself (both masters have sort of a reputation) should be seen as strong evidence against Vasiukov’s recollection.

1)When a player like Vasiukov makes a serious claim he should produce either documentary evidence or a credible eyewitness. All the more so as against Bobby Fischer.
In 1958 Vasiukov had just managed to become an IM. He could not qualify for the Soviet Championship final. When he did in later years he landed up in the lower half of the score table most of the time. In contrast Fischer was already a GM, having won the US Championship in succession (1957 and 1958). He beat Reshevsky in the National Championship and defeated Larsen in the Interzonal. None of the Soviet GMs (Tal,Petrosian, Bronstein and Averbakh) could beat him in that tournament. When he qualified for the Candidates’ he was only 16-years-old. Vasiukov’s record in 1958
is poor in terms of rating and performance in comparison with Bobby.
In blitz again the acknowledged masters were Petrosian, Tal, Korchnoi and Bronstein. Did Vasiukov ever manage to win one blitz championship ahead of them? Who saw him win against Bobby? No one.

2)Enough documentary evidence has been mentioned here by way of Igor Korchnoi’s own essay (in Chess is my life by Viktor Korchnoi, Edition Olms 2005) and a recent photograph of his participation in his father’s birthday on ChessBase site. The Time magazine notice about divorce proceedings is dated 1983, a full year after the arrival of the family. It is patently false and even absurd to suggest that a divorce notice is served by a lawyer at an air port on a family arriving from abroad. If this was true, the Soviet propaganda machinery would have seized the opportunity to paint Korchnoi in the vilest of colours. It didn’t because charges of irresponsibility and callousness towards his family would not have stuck. Vasiukov ought to know better than making serious personal allegations without producing one living witness or even a little piece of paper.

You can only ask someone being interviewed to tell the truth, and if they don’t, then their reputation will suffer. It’s not up to Vasiukov to provide “documentary evidence or a credible eyewitness” for his blitz match against Fischer – he was there!

An interesting fact about Vasiukov is that he only took up chess when he was 15, but the comments about when he became an IM/GM lack an appreciation of chess in the Soviet Union. Being a USSR Master of Sport or IM back then (and right into the 80s) meant vastly more than it does nowadays. Fischer was in a totally different position in the US, but I’d hazard a guess that the Moscow Championship that Vasiukov won in 1955 and 1958 was stronger than the US Championships Fischer won. It’s also not true that Vasiukov always finished low down in the USSR Championship – e.g. he was 3rd behind Tal and Polugaevsky in 1967 & 4-5th with Tal behind Spassky, Polugayevsky and Bronstein in 1962.

I don’t really understand your comments about blitz, given that as mentioned in the interview above Vasiukov had just won the Soviet Union’s main blitz tournament in Moscow in 1958, ahead of Petrosian and Bronstein – and he won that event 8 times. “Who saw him win against Bobby? No one” is rhetorical, unless you’ve interviewed the people who were present back then. I’m not disputing Fischer was a star of a different magnitude, but it’s perfectly possible Vasiukov might have beaten him in a blitz match in 1958.

Also, on the divorce letter – frankly it doesn’t strike me as that implausible that Korchnoi, unable to attend himself, might have arranged for someone to meet his wife and son – and chosen to “kill two birds with one stone” by passing on the letter at the same time (perhaps his family might have decided to go to another country before he could see them). Korchnoi had already been in another relationship for some time so it’s perfectly understandable that he might want to start the proceedings relatively quickly. The case getting to court, and being covered by Time Magazine, would of course all take time. I don’t see anything wrong with Vasiukov passing on what he was told by Tal (with the proviso that he did actually talk to Tal about it!). Of course it’s also possible that Tal was misinformed himself.

I am aware of the extraordinary strength of the Soviet Championships. But the US Championship with the participation of Samuel Reshevsky, Robert Byrne, Pal Benko and Larry Evans is not bad in terms of comparison.
To return to Vasiukov, he could only manage a modest 10.5 out of 19 in the Semi-finals and failed to qualify for the 1958 Soviet Championship.
He claims in the other interview that he “whitewashed’’ Geller also on the occasion of meeting Fischer at Moscow Central Club. Geller was a Soviet champion and also a world championship candidate. A Soviet master beating both the US and the USSR Champions on the same day in blitz stretches credulity. At this rate any grand dad could boast about anything, with no one being wiser.
However, I would accept your info. that he was a blitz champion. These sources are not easy to trace.
I was looking at the cross tables of Soviet Championships and unable to locate his name near the top most of the time. After checking the years on the basis of your info. I can confirm the following. He shared third to fifth place with Taimanov and Platonov in 1967, scoring 9.5 out of 13.This was an open tournament with 130 players. One of his best results. Similarly he shared 6th to 7th place with Balashov in 1972 (the year you meant), scoring 11.5 out of 21.
The point I was making was that he was nowhere near Fischer in 1958 in terms of playing strength.
Over all, his record is modest as compared to that of others.
On the business of Korchnoi’s divorce there is little to add by way of facts.
This has been an interesting debate. At the end of the day let us all agree to disagree.

Vasiukov is rated there #11 in the world in 1962. Calling him just “a Soviet master” does not give him enough credit. I began subscribing to a Polish chess journal “Szachy” in 1961. Vasiukov’s name was pretty close to the very top, almost all of the time, at the time (I lost my entire collection of issues from 1961-1981, so I have no proof, but you have no proof either :)

Comparisons of that kind are silly, but since you started, here’s my take on it: Vasiukov rates certainly below Fischer, about even with Reshevsky, all others mentioned by you would be rated lower.

“The point I was making was that he was nowhere near Fischer in 1958 in terms of playing strength.”

If you take Sonas’ figures seriously then it was only in about September 1958 that Fischer went ahead of Vasiukov for the first time. Add that Vasiukov was in his home city/chess club, was a blitz specialist, and had experience playing blitz against the top Soviet players of the time – and it’s entirely possible he could have beaten Fischer. Especially as blitz depends hugely on mood and form etc.

Of course, I don’t know what the actual result of those games was – that’s something for serious historians to try and confirm after checking original sources (including Vasiukov’s interviews) – but it’s clearly wrong to dismiss the possibility that Fischer lost.

In 1958 Vasiukov became an IM. When I used the term Soviet master, all that I meant was that he was not a GM yet like Geller or Fischer. He became a grandmaster later. It is probable that the 4th place in the 29th USSR Championship (along with other results) put him among the top twelve around 1962.
In terms of sporting performance and creative achievement the hierarchy of players in chess history is open to debate. But there should be some objective standards in attempting the same. Otherwise it becomes a farce.

As I said before, you’re paying too much attention to the titles. The system was utterly different back then: e.g. “In 1957, the Soviet federation counted 110 masters, but only 19 grandmasters”. http://www.mark-weeks.com/aboutcom/aa08d05.htm

If you look at Sonas again then Vasiukov was a 2600+ player from 1955 onwards, but back then performing at what we think of as GM level wasn’t enough – titles were awarded e.g. for getting to the WC Candidates Tournament, but of course it was much tougher for a Soviet player to qualify for inter-zonal tournaments.

The discrepancy between playing strength and titles continued – a Shipov piece I recently read mentioned how Smyslov played a simul against 8 Soviet IMs in the 1980s to prepare for his Candidates Matches, and Shipov repeated and put exclamation marks after “Soviet IMs”. There are all kinds of stories about how when the USSR collapsed untitled, or lowly IMs etc., from the former Soviet Union would dominate tournaments among apparently superior opponents.

Anyway, while no-one’s claiming Fischer wasn’t a better player with a great future ahead of him there’s no objective reason to think that Vasiukov couldn’t have beaten the 15-year-old Fischer at blitz in 1958. That’s the bottom line :)

There are two authoritative studies, Soviet Chess by Andrew Soltis and The Soviet Championships by Bernard Cafferty. Both are strong on contemporary Russian sources. I use them all the time apart from an earlier work on the same period by Robert Wade. Where does Vasiukov stand in comparison to his contemporaries? Only by way of occasional mention in these books. Probably a more sympathetic historian might come up with a comprehensive assessment of his work.
About titles and ratings: I do not wish to overemphasize their importance for the same reasons you have mentioned. Weren’t there several other players like Nezhmetdinov who did not even receive the grandmaster title? So I am aware of the problem with these titles and ratings. But they have their place even as you prefer to use Sonas. You are entitled to accept Vasiukov’s version of his beating Fischer. Others like me are entitled to believe observers like Averbakh.

Just to be clear, I’m not sure what the truth about the Vasiukov-Fischer match is. Part of the reason I included that section of the interview was that I found contradictory claims about it on the internet, which means that Vasiukov’s own comments are certainly of interest (whether you can trust them or not). All I’d say is that I’m personally satisfied that Vasiukov was a good enough blitz player back then to make his beating the 15-year-old Fischer at least a possibility.

Oh dear, that photo halfway down the page is badly mis-titled. It’s clearly from the 1974 Candidates Final, not Merano 1981. I know because I’ve seen it before anyway, but there are several visual clues that should make it obvious (age of the players, two Soviet flags, hideous decor)…

Interesting interview and debate, tks.
Reading both statements I conclude that Vasiukov was among the strongest soviet blitz players at that time and he could have perfectly beaten Fischer, who perhaps was quite tired after playing the whole day, game after game, while the soviet masters were mostly waiting to give a lesson to the young “impertinent” american wonder boy. As Averbach is still alive, would be interesting to ask if he was present in the blitz match and if he remembered what the score was.
In the interview I found Vasiukov lack of autocritithism to his role in the prooven soviet colluding chess system. It’s interesting his criticism to Korchnoi and Kasparov, the only two soviet GMs who had the courage to confront a system, even putting in risk their personal safety, while Vasiukov himself made a good living backing such an unfair establishment.

I am not an expert in chess history, but I lived there in the 70’s. I was a classmate of Sasha Furman, whose dad at the time was Karpov’s coach. He was nervous about the matches, because their outcome was important to his family livelyhood. Perhaps he was the only one I knew who unwillingly rooted for Karpov. To me the bottom line is that Vasyukov was part of the Soviet chess machine, which was as corrupt as the country itself. I would not trust a word he says.

In 1976, VK’s son was kicked out from the college, right after passing his entrance exams, because of his father. Karpov lived within a 10 minutes walk from the school, and probably was cheering the expulsion.

VK never had a reputation of being a nice guy, but he is a chess player and not an apparatchik like Vasyukov.

I hardly understand people writing about Korchnoi “fighting the system” and Vasyukov making good living for himself. Korchnoi escaped from the USSR to give his professional carear more perspectives, that is exactly to make better living. Meanwile Vasiukov – not by far a worse player, actually – is barely known to anyone.

A postscript on Vasiukov’s claim that he literally crushed Fischer in their meeting at Moscow Central Club 1958 and from that point on whenever they met, Bobby always treated him with respect.
This is what Bobby said in an interview with Toran in 1961:http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/fischer3.html
Fischer: Before the [1958] Interzonal I was invited by the USSR Chess Federation to visit Moscow, and I played some interesting training games there with notable young stars like Vasiukov, who was then champion of Moscow. Yes, the trip was very useful.
Torán: They clearly like you, don’t they?
Fischer: They recognize who’s going to beat them.
There are two file pictures with Vasiukov as a spectator, with Fischer playing blitz
against Petrosian.http://kevinspraggett.blogspot.in/2011/03/fischer-interview-from-1960.html
What Averbakh and Petrosian had to say on the same meeting at Moscow Central Club also contradicts Vasiukov’s claim:
A t the Central Chess Club he managed to play some lightning chess with several young masters, notably, with Nikitin and Vasyukov. He also played a few fast games with Petrosyan (Tigran afterwards recalled, “I was the person summoned to the C l u b to
‘cope” with a youth who was beating the Moscow masters at lightning chess “)
( From preface by Averbakh to the book, Russians versus Fischer by Plisetsky and Voronkov)
Who are the Moscow masters beaten by Fischer, if not Vasiukov and others?
So we have the testimonies of Petrosian, Averbakh and Bobby himself, none supporting Vasiukov’s exaggerated claim, “I literally crushed Fischer.”
In fairness Bobby was sufficiently impressed by Vasiukov’s play to mention him in the 1961 interview cited above.
Petrosian passed away in 1983 and Fischer in 2008. In their life time Vasiukov never made any such claim and after 50 years of the said encounter he comes up with this statement that still goes against documented testimony.

I quoted an interview above with Vasiukov that was published in 2003 and gave his account of playing Fischer, so you’re wrong about Vasiukov’s not making any such claim “in their life time” – plus of course I doubt you’ve trawled through the archives of Russian/Soviet chess journals and newspapers and talked to all of Vasiukov’s acquaintances to be able to claim that he didn’t mention it much sooner. He may not have, but it’s at least as likely he did.

I also don’t see how the Fischer quote confirms what happened in 1958 – he implies he’s going to beat the Russians in future, as he did. If anything that interview would hurt your case as it seems out of character for Fischer to talk about training games but not boast about his score.

Anyway, I’m not claiming Vasiukov’s version of events is what happened (I’m inclined to doubt him myself after reading some very ungenerous comments he made relating to seconding Taimanov in the match against Fischer), just pointing out that some of your arguments for dismissing his eyewitness account are weak.

I would gladly ask any of Vasiukov’a contemporaries if there is some truth to his claim “I literally crushed Fischer”. Many are no more. The surviving ones are very old and not easy to reach.Some might not want to be drawn into controversy. Nevertheless, I have asked mutual friends to see if any one can be contacted and care to remember what happened then.

In wikipedia it says that,
” Karpov, in his book Karpov on Karpov (Atheneum 1993), writes that, because of Fischer’s overwhelming form at that time, Korchnoi and Petrosian were asked by Soviet chess authorities to choose between themselves, before the match, who they thought would have the better chance of stopping Fischer in the finals. Petrosian apparently believed strongly in himself, and so Korchnoi was asked to throw the match, receiving as compensation invitations to the three most prestigious tournaments in western Europe. Petrosian, however, lost to Fischer by the score of (+1 −5 =3) late in 1971.”

and

“With his victory over Petrosian, Korchnoi advanced to the Candidates’ Final, the match to determine who would challenge reigning World Champion Bobby Fischer in 1975, to face Karpov. In the run-up to the match, Korchnoi was constantly subjected to threats and harassment, and was virtually unable to find any Grandmasters to assist him. Bronstein apparently assisted Korchnoi, for which he was punished. Bronstein, in his last book, Secret Notes, published in 2007, wrote that he advised Korchnoi before the match began, but then had to leave to play an event himself; when he returned, Korchnoi was down by three games. Bronstein then assisted Korchnoi for the final stages.”

I don’t understand why officials supported Karpov, or Petrosian, isn’t it better to let chess decide who is better ?

Karpov’s word should be taken with a pinch of salt.
In 1971 Candidates’ Match Petrosian happened to the stronger player. He deserved to win. There is a very interesting report on the match by Spassky in Chess Life & Review. He too confirms the same.
In 1974 the picture had changed. The authorities had come to believe that Karpov was their hope in beating Fischer.
It is true that they were partial to him and this was unfair to Korchnoi. But he also spoiled things for himself by declining the help of Keres who offered to assist him. In his autobiography, Chess is my life he writes, “On the eve of my match with Karpov Keres was one of the few grandmasters who offered me his help. I was forced to decline. So overwhelming was his authority over me.” Keres was an outstanding analyst. His advice and assistance would have made a difference.
In the end Korchnoi’s habitual time trouble and suspect opening repertoire did him in notwithstanding determined resistance till the end.This should not detract from Karpov’s outstanding form that disposed of rivals like Polugaevesky and Spassky, not to mention Korchnoi.
Still, I agree with the basic observation that all players should start with fair and equal conditions from the organisation. Let chess decide.

Glad to see your interest.In matters of chess history do not take any one’s word for granted. Look for others’ testimony, documentary evidence and most important, what happened over the board.
Do read autobiographies of Karpov, Korchnoi, Averbakh and more comprehensive books like “Soviet Chess” by Soltis and “Russians versus Fischer”.
Petrosian-Korchnoi Match, 1971 was tough with both players missing chances. There is no question of either opponent throwing a game. Not even Fischer or Spassky ever made that suggestion. There was no love lost between Karpov, Korchnoi and Petrosian. So he has discredited them with this allegation.
Petrosian lost his job as Editor-in-Chief of “64” Magazine after Korchnoi beat him in Candidates, 1977 and Karpov took over the editorship of the magazine renamed as “64 review”. Petrosian in turn supported Kasparov, Karpov’s new rival. So there was a lot of politics here.
About Keres: In his autobiography Korchnoi says that he never won against him.* He either lost or drew. So Keres had a kind of moral authority over him. Suppose the Soviet authorities had forced Keres not to help Korchnoi Viktor would have mentioned it in his book. Somehow he was not comfortable with the idea of taking help from Keres. He does not explain why.
(Korchnoi did win a game against Keres in 1975. But he does not care to remember.The lifetime score between the two was: +1, -4, =12)

Independent of there I believe it is true Korchnoi was under huge pressure (Brostein says he is punished for his assistance), also note that Kasparov’s surname was Weinstein, I believe he didn’t change his surname gor nothing.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Unionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootless_cosmopolitan *
* In a December 1, 1952 Politburo session, Stalin announced:
“Every Jewish nationalist is the agent of American intelligence service. Jewish nationalists think that their nation was saved by USA (there you can become rich, bourgeois, etc.). They think they’re indebted to the Americans. Among doctors there are many Jewish nationalists.”[9]

Of course Korchnoi was under pressure. As for antisemitism,it has a long and complex history in Russia. When it came to chess in the former USSR its impact was ambivalent and contradictory varying from period to period. As compared to other spheres of life in the Soviet era, its presence in chess life was comparatively less.But then everything is relative when we are looking at the past and its relationship with the present.

Actually that interview’s worth reading as some people have misinterpreted Ivanchuk’s recent comments in Gibraltar when he said he was just treating the Candidates as nothing special. He was obviously trying to take his own advice, as the problem is that he cares too much not too little about World Championship events.

Dear readers,
After several enquiries I managed to contact Mr. Igor Korchnoi.
Here is his reply to my query.
I trust, his reply should put an end to the slander spread by Vasiukov.
Email received on 17th August, 2014
Dear Mr. Nagesh Havanur,
I am not very much inclined to write to threads 3-years old. Maybe, later.
Now, to facts.
We were greeted in Vienna airport by Mr. Alban Brodbeck, Mr. Kortchnoi’s lawyer at the time. Some hours later, we boarded a Swissair flight for Zurich and then headed to his (Mr. Brodbeck) home in Glarus, where we stayed for two months. Mr. Kortchnoi joined us late in the evening, along with Petra, after coming back from his simultaneous in France.The divorce proceedings were started in 1982 on behalf of Mr. Kortchnoi, about three months after our arrival in Switzerland.The divorce agreement was signed in 1986.
In between, Mr. Kortchnoi had to pay for my mother and me according to Swiss Law.
Best Wishes,
Igor Kortchnoi

Impressive research prof! But imo having a lawyer pick up your family and then joining them with your mistress is not very classy. And like Igor points out, K. HAD to pay for them. In the end I’m inclined to believe both Igor and Wasjukow as both their stories are very compatible in my opinion.
But let’s not make a too big deal of it; Korchnoi is famous for his beautiful chess, not his beautiful personality.

P.s. On another note, in Russians vs Fischer one can read that Fischer was sufficiently impressed by Wasjukow to remember their 58 games in 1971 (and to talk about it).

Dear S2,
I shall dwell on only two points:
1)Korchnoi asked his lawyer to meet his wife and son at the air port to ensure that there were no legal issues at the Swiss end on account of their immigration. This was necessary after all the problems created by the Soviet establishment preventing their departure.
Petra Leeuwerik was a friend and confidante of Korchnoi.She acted as his manager on the eve of the match and also saw to practical arrangements for his family.It is demeaning to call her his “mistress” as you have chosen to do.
Igor Korchnoi has stated facts and Vasiukov has spun a scandal.
The two are by no means comparable.
2) If Fischer remembered his visit to Moscow in 1958 and his meeting with Vasuikov it is not surprising.But that book “Russians versus Fischer” by Plisetsky and Voronkov mentions only Petrosian having beaten the American, not Vasuikov.